General Election: Deacon Nick Donnelly banned again!

As the countdown toward the General Election continues, and the Scottish Bishops have given their opinions; as have the English and Welsh Bishops, we are left to consider which political party we, the Catholic laity might receive our vote. Deacon Nick Donnelly, who has always been fearless in promulgating truth and our Catholic Faith has yet again been ‘banned’. This time by the Press (he is obviously doing something right). The ‘offending’ article is reproduced below as it will give all our readers eligible to vote in the UK food for thought; as it will readers elsewhere who will be facing their own decisions regarding who they might trust to govern their respective countries. It is incumbent on us all to use our vote wisely and according to our consciences. Read on …. and consider where you will stand in May.

——————–

The editor of the Barrow Evening Mail has banned my article on the General Election from their weekly Christian Comment section.   Here’s my banned article:

Every General Election I am faced with a dilemma as a Christian – which candidate and political party can I vote for in good conscience? As a Christian I no longer trust the Labour party because of their actions against the Church when last in government. It was Tony Blair who destroyed the network of Catholic adoption agencies in this country by forcing them to place children with gay couples. As a consequence the Church had to cut her links with adoption agencies that ordinary Christians had built up over a hundred years. How can I vote for a candidate who won’t protect babies from being aborted because they’re girls? Recently, the vast majority of Labour MPs, including Barrow’s John Woodcock, voted down legislation that would have ensured that babies are protected from sex-selection abortion. I also can’t vote for the Liberal Democrats or Green party because they hold more extreme positions than Labour that are impossible for me to reconcile with my Christian Faith. How can Christians trust David Cameron after his legalisation of same sex marriage which did not feature in either the 2010 manifesto or in the Coalition Agreement with the Liberal Democrats? And now Christian schools are being put into special measures by Ofsted for not adequately teaching LGBT rights and issues. When it comes to the Conservative party I’m profoundly reluctant to vote for their candidate Simon Fell considering his party’s record on life issues and same-sex marriage. It was Margaret Thatcher’s government that legalised experimentation on embryonic human beings conceived through IVF. This original Tory legislation has led to the creation in the laboratory of animal-human hybrids and recent legalisation allowing the destruction of embryonic human beings as to be used as spare parts for siblings. Some Christians tell me that they’re going to vote of UKIP as a protest vote but even that option is not open to me because of their policy of cutting the UK’s foreign aid budget by two-thirds. It would be gravely immoral to cut aid to some of the poorest and most vulnerable families and children in the world who depend on the UK for food, medicine and education. I consider voting at a General Election to be a solemn and binding duty on every citizen because countless men and women have given their lives to protect our freedom as a democracy. But what do Christians do when all the political parties advocate a whole variety of policies that we consider immoral? I’m sure I’m not the only one to conclude that no political party at this General Election represents our moral world view as a Christians. History tells us that new political movements emerge when groups of people find themselves politically marginalised or disenfranchised. Have we come to the point when Christians feel strongly enough to challenge the secular ruling establishment in this country?

Deacon Nick Donnelly, Our Lady of Furness, Duke St, Barrow.

The reasons given: ‘It is highly politicised and as we are now in purdah (the period running up to an election during which newspapers must be extremely careful of what political content they publish), it is not appropriate for publication I’m afraid.’

——————

The only comment I can make is that obviously the remainder of the British Press do not share the editorial policy of the Barrow Evening Mail considering the amount of propaganda we are showered with by the secular agenda. I leave the last word to Deacon Nick:

“As a UK Catholic my vote doesn’t count & my voice doesn’t count. Politically marginalised, disenfranchised & censored”

About Gertrude

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium.
This entry was posted in Newsflash and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to General Election: Deacon Nick Donnelly banned again!

  1. toadspittle says:

    The Editor who banned the column deserves a good kicking. Serves him right to be “living” in Barrow, wherever that is, (assuming he does live there and not in Chelsea, or somewhere.)
    A good, lively, polemical column which should upset a lot of readers, with any luck.
    Which is all we can ask for, isn’t it?

    “As a UK Catholic my vote doesn’t count & my voice doesn’t count. Politically marginalised, disenfranchised & censored”
    That, however, is utter tripe, Nick. We vote as Tories, Socialists, UKIPs, or whatever – not as Lutherans, or Catholics. If you don’t find a sympathetic candidate, either stand as one yourself, or take the least worst option available.
    Nobody’s “marginalising” you for your beliefs – any more or less than they would a Muslim, a Mormon, or a Satanist. And you weren’t “censored” by the voting system, only by a running-scared newspaper, whose days are rightly numbered, I suspect.

  2. toadspittle says:

    “This original Tory legislation has led to the creation in the laboratory of animal-human hybrids..”
    This is a cruel allusion to Boris Johnson, we must suppose?

  3. planechant2 says:

    I’m not sure that I agree with your comment regarding reducing ‘international aid’ as gravely immoral, for It depends what is meant by ‘international aid’. The present government is giving over £400 million to Planned Parenthood, which is an international commercial organisation dealing almost exclusively in supplying contraceptives and promoting abortion facilities in Third World countries. This ‘generosity’ for this evil cause using tax-payer’s (our) – money was inherited from the previous Labour governments – Ms Harriet Harman please take a bow! I say well done to UKIP if they intend to end such funding! Genuine suffering and hardship deserve and should be helped, and I would hope that UKIP would continue to do this.

  4. johnhenrycn says:

    That BEM editor’s appeal to purdah is positively un-pukka, and his pretence of high-mindedness is pitiful, as Gertrude points out in her penultimate. Anyway, I suspect that Deacon “Angst”😉 Donnelly is pulling our proverbials. The circulation of the Barrow Evening Mail is less than my parish bulletin’s. Indeed, I suspect that the BEM doesn’t even exist, except as a figment of what said editor is pleased to call his “imagination”:

    “Welcome to the Barrow Evening Mail…first off, we are not the North West Evening Mail (the printed paper), we do not profess to hold their obvious prowess with a pen. Their writing style is detailed, succinct and they never exploit a situation to gain a few extra column inches. In short, they are absolutely professional. We are not. We make up nonsense…all our stories are fake. We enjoy the cut and thrust of our own imaginations, and are willing to push the normal into the extraordinary. Or, in short, we are bored and trying to fill our time… on this page we also like to say, ‘in short'”

    http://barroweveningmail.co.uk/?page_id=9

    In short, either our good (seriously) Deacon Nick is pulling our legs, or he hasn’t twigged to the fact that the BEM is a satirical site on which sober soliloquies are out-of-place…
    …much like that Eye Of The Tiber website (think Catholic Onion) which I’ve linked a couple of times recently, but which no one here seems to think is particularly funny for some reason.

  5. Deacon Nick Donnelly says:

    When I write the Barrow Evening Mail I’m referring to the North West Evening Mail. I’ve been writing for them for over 15 years.

  6. johnhenrycn says:

    Does anyone else think that Deacon Nick looks a lot like Frere Rabit…

    …which I say as a compliment to both of them?

  7. GC says:

    JH, no.

  8. johnhenrycn says:

    Thank you, Deacon, for that explanation (15:46) which non-Barrow boys, especially foreign ones like me, can hardly be expected to have known.

  9. toadspittle says:

    A pair of distinguished egg-heads.
    For the Wholly Trinity…

    How refreshing to hear from the author himself. Despite the fact, if JH is correct (and who can doubt it?), he doesn’t seem to know the name of the paper for which he has worked over fifteen years.
    Mind you, that can often be a considerable advantage. Though not in his case, it seems, sad to say.

  10. toadspittle says:

    Curiouser and curiouser.
    We must click on the little rectangle. If we can still be bothered.
    Little rectangles, yet.
    What the devil is the world coming to? I blame nothingness – and Khali.

  11. johnhenrycn says:

    Have it your way, GC, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as La Belle once said to la Bête😉

  12. sandygrounder says:

    Deacon Nick is spot on. I will not vote Labour for the reasons Deacon Nick gives and the other parties are equally unattractive although some candidates may be better than others. However I do not think it is wrong not to vote in some circumstances. If all the options are wrong why choose any of them?

  13. johnhenrycn says:

    Okay, let me get serious for a minute: unless a devout Catholic – holding fast to every last particle and crumb of dogma (as he should) – is willing to stand for election, it’s wrong for him to participate by voting in any election, because every last particle and crumb of Catholic dogma is non-negotiable and because there has never, ever, ever been a free election in which pure Catholic dogma has been the platform of any candidate. Am I wrong? Until Deacon Donnelly – on whose shoulders rests a fairly heavy brain – or his Stephenish agnate in my country tells me specifically how to vote, perhaps I should never vote again? Honestly, I pine for days gone by when priests did exactly that. I would have slavishly followed their advice if I’d then been Catholic.

    It’s no good, Deacon, to pose the question you have: (“But what do Christians when all the political parties advocate a whole variety of policies that we consider immoral?”) unless in your teaching capacity you offer a Christian answer to said question. So, dear Deacon: what do we do?

    I suggest, Sir, that your apperception of the architecture of democracy needs some fine tuning😉

  14. Gertrude says:

    JH: Spoken as only a lawyer could😉 Seriously, there was a time, especially after Emancipation, when the priests in the UK would have given such information, and it was usually to support the Labour party as there was much injustice in the early part of the last century, and a huge Irish immigrant population. They have held this position ever since. You are right that no party reflects Catholic Moral teaching wholly and this poses a dilemma. The letter raises valid questions and answers that no party deserves the Catholic vote. However, personally I believe that for democracy to flourish (as much as we have a democracy in the UK) it is incumbent on us all to cast a vote; especially women whose right to vote was so painfully fought for. It would of course be wonderful if just one priest stood up and said ‘don’t vote for any of the rascals’ – but, it aint gonna happen.
    Of course across the pond in Canada I imagine life is so much easier!!

  15. toadspittle says:

    “I believe that for democracy to flourish (as much as we have a democracy in the UK) it is incumbent on us all to cast a vote; especially women whose right to vote was so painfully fought for. “
    As usual Gertrude is spot on. Particularly about votes for women, which – at one time – was as utterly unthinkable as the idea of two men marrying each other, or homosexuality not being a serious crime, or Catholics not being denied positions of authority.

    ,(Too many double negatives here, Oh well.)

  16. johnhenrycn says:

    Alas, dear lady, our choices here are, on the whole, no easier, although I personally have the benefit of voting for an MP, a member of my parish,who has been ridiculed in the press for refusing to deny divine creation; and the next riding over is represented by my old law school chum who is vigorously pro-life.

  17. johnhenrycn says:

    Toadspit…so many straw men, so little time…

  18. johnhenrycn says:

    Gertrude says (17:30) – “However, personally I believe that for democracy to flourish…it is incumbent on us all to cast a vote; especially women whose right to vote was so painfully fought for.”

    This comes to my mind tonight as I watch the first episode of Foyle’s War Season 8. Is there a proper, but different, place for women and a proper, but different, place for men in the political and commercial life of a nation? Are we all equal, or are we all unique? One sub-plot in the story is about a woman who is promoted to a supervisory role during WWII, but who is sent back to the production line when the terribly injured (but what does that matter?) veteran who previously held the position returns to it at war’s end, which said woman sees as an injustice. Only half-way through the show, but the thought occurs to me – the franchise issue aside – that the role of men, as men, has become such a minor one, such a dispensable one, such an interchangeable (with women) one, that the notion of equality between the sexes may not be a good thing. What is the special role of men? Do we even have one? Should men, on the one hand, and women, on the other, receive preferential treatment depending on the situation, or is discrimination based on sex always bad?

    I remember welcoming the entry of women into the legal profession, because I thought (back then) it would mean so many more gentle people I could dominate. More fool me. But, you know, the legal profession is a mess right now, and I wonder how much of that is due to the women in it.

  19. johnhenrycn says:

    …and I should mention similar, not identical, concerns about the medical profession. Smart women dominate the family physician field, because it fits in with raising a family. They work part time. Very few rise to the top in the specialties because they insist on a balanced life. Now what, if anything, is wrong with that? I have my antediluvian opinions about why that’s not good, but let me turn the field over to someone else.

  20. toadspittle says:

    “Are we all equal, or are we all unique?”
    Not an “either, or,” situation.
    We are, incontestably, all unique – physically and mentally.
    As to whether we are all “equal,” or not, depends, as usual, on what we mean by the word.
    Does it mean we are all entitled to the same amount of respect?
    What about Habsburg’s beloved Emperors? Are they entitled to an equal amount of respect as Habsbug himself? Surely not?

    Does JH spend his extra-legal life staring glassy-eyed watching rubbish on the telly (when not involved in brutally persecuting poor old Toad, of course)?
    Fie, young man. No wonder you look so pasty and puffy, and shapeless!

    Get off out, and breathe some fresh Canadian air – get the stink blown off yer!

  21. johnhenrycn says:

    Toad, I’m not (grossly) obese, so keep your insults to yourself. As for watching “rubbish on the telly” I haven’t owned one of those contraptions this century. I do watch DVDs, but there’s nothing rubbishy – as distinct from light entertainment – about the things I watch, which are always in good taste, if not always memorable. Much like my dialogues with you.

    As for the male/female divide, your anodyne observation that we are “all unique”, again misses the target. Yes, you and I may be as different as chalk and cheese, but what about important and incontestable differences between the sexes? Are there any, aside from an ability to be pregant on the one hand, and a superior talent for lifting bags and toting bales on the other? Are our sex roles otherwise completely interchangeable? Your feminist and your homosexual believe they are and should be. I’m not doctrinaire on these issues, but I question whether (a) the advance of women in, say, the professions and (b) the retreat or pushing aside of men from historically masculine pursuits in favour of women has been an entirely good thing for society.

  22. toadspittle says:

    …but I question whether (a) the advance of women in, say, the professions and (b) the retreat or pushing aside of men from historically masculine pursuits in favour of women has been an entirely good thing for society.”
    Yes, excuse my foolish personal remarks, JH. They were impertinent.
    As to the above – you might be right, but there is no way of knowing. Possibly good in some aspects, not good in others.
    Can’t get much more anodyne than that, for sure.

    Will Hillary be a worse president than Obama? It will be disputed for years to come. What a treat.

  23. Mimi says:

    ‘Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.’ — H. L. Mencken

  24. johnhenrycn says:

    I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
    William F. Buckley, Jr😉

  25. johnhenrycn says:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706

    “In this fascinating book, New Yorker business columnist James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea: Large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant – better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.”

    …I’ve not read it, but simply mention it for consideration.

  26. ‘Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.’ — H. L. Mencken
    General Election:(Noun) believed by antiquaries to be the remains of some system of self government, it consist solely in asking the citizen such queries as, “Detect some difference between the two persons in frock coats placed before you at this election.”- G.K. Chesterton*, A Miscellany of Men

    * He’s been absent from this conversation for far to long🙂

  27. toadspittle says:

    How splendid, and daring, to see Mencken quoted.
    Toad would not dare run such comments from him as:
    The American people, taken one with another, constitute the most timorous, snivelling, poltroonish, ignominous mob of serfs and goose-steppers ever gathered under one flag in Christendom since the end of the Middle Ages.
    …might upset somebody.

  28. toadspittle says:

    “Large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant – better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future.””

    Smarter than Edison, Einstein, Wittgenstein, Russell, Pasteur, Marie Curie, Chesterton(!), Bill Gates, Ex-Pope Benedict, etc., etc, eh?
    Then the sooner we assemble a large group of people and get lt/them working on curing cancer, predicting the winner of the Kentucky Derby, and solving the Middle East problem, the better.
    Is what Toad says. They can use his barn.

  29. Tom Fisher says:

    the role of men, as men, has become such a minor one, such a dispensable one, such an interchangeable (with women) one, that the notion of equality between the sexes may not be a good thing. What is the special role of men? Do we even have one?

    Speaking for myself I don’t ask for a ‘special role’, I just try to be the best person I can be, and often fail. Try it. It’s the only way. If you’re threatened by the equality of the sexes then might want to take a look in the mirror and figure out why, then fix it. See below:

    tells me specifically how to vote, perhaps I should never vote again? Honestly, I pine for days gone by when priests did exactly that. I would have slavishly followed their advice if I’d then been Catholic

    Really Johnhenry? You want someone to tell you how to vote so you can follow their instructions slavishly? If you’re concerned about masculinity, be a man. Vote (or not) how you see fit, don’t pine for someone to tell you how to vote. :

  30. johnhenrycn says:

    You’re right to question the word “slavishly”, Tom; to consider respectufully and seriously any priestly advice on voting, especially concerning party planks that might affect faith and morals, would be closer to what I believe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s